However if one truly wants to make such a big deal out of what we call the armed conflict which occurred in America from 1861 to 1865 , and if its historical accuracy and honesty that one truly seeks, then I think Douglas Southall Freeman is, perhaps, the truest to historical accuracy in coining the proper term . . .

“War Between The States” is more accurate than “Civil War” because it was a war for independence and not a war for one faction inside a nation to exert control over the other.

Of course, from Lincoln’s point of view (and that of the victors, who write the history) the Confederate States of America never left the USA, so they see it as a Civil War.

But, the CSA did secede and the USA did defeat them in war and re-annexed them as conquered territory for the duration of “Reconstruction”. To claim that the CSA had no legal right to secede requires an honest person to admit that the colonies had no legal right to present the Declaration of Independence to the legal ruler of those colonies.

As A kid in school I questioned why the south wasn’t simply allowed to go its way. I was rudely informed that I had it all wrong. But the story as told in school never made sense. I think they should have simply left and that was that. If you look at when Lincoln freed the slaves and the fact that he did not free them in the territories that remained in the union, it puts the lie to the “it was a war against slavery meme.”

Frankly, I think now would be a good time for the red states to leave the union and take the nukes along.

I've always been partial to "The Late Unpleasantness". So much so that I think we should use it for the next one as well.

I hope we're not under time pressure to choose a name for the next unpleasantness, but that decision is in the hands of one of the most evil, anti-American thugs in our country's history. I will continue praying for peace, but "if you wish for peace, prepare for war".

26
posted on 01/11/2014 11:44:01 AM PST
by Pollster1
("Shall not be infringed" is unambiguous.)

When we first arrived here in GreenAcres (rural NWGA) I was commenting to someone about living in an area rich with Civil War history (specifically, the taking of "The General"). Someone gently said to me, in a wonderful southern drawl, "Son, you need to understand that we don't call it the 'Civil War' here. In these parts it's known as 'The War of Northern Aggression'".

I disagree. By denying Southerners the right to secede from a union of their own making they became slaves...demonstrating the hypocrisy of all those who desperately want the northern cause and their aggression to somehow be morally superior to the Southern cause. You simply cannot be simultaneously for and against slavery, even if one is bondage and the other is by denial of self governance...both eliminate self determination.

It’s the one fact Southernphobes and Lincoln lovers can neither refute nor acknowledge, because it destroys their world view and holier than thou self image. To admit the truth is to admit that they support the slave master and that they actually should loath themselves. Not going to happen.

That's not uncommon, but one that I've never heard (though it would be more accurate) is the War for Federal Supremacy

The Constitution gave very specific and limited authority to the federal government, and any sane reading of the Constitution would inform you that the modern thought federal law trumps state law is a lie: only federal law pursuant to the Constitution is superior, anything not so pursuant is null and void (see the last third of Maybury v. Madison for an excellent logical/legal proof.)

Since the War for Federal Supremacy, the federal government has usurped a lot of powers that are rightly those of the several states — this usurpation has been quickly growing in the very recent years, but the trend for greater and greater usurpation is illustrated very well with prohibition and the war on drugs: in the former there was a Constitutional amendment, in the latter no such amendment exists. (The difficulty of the acceptance of each indicates the implicit authority accepted to enact the laws. Prohibition was at least following the letter of the the law that is the Constitution, the War on Drugs does not even need that form followed to be held as legitimate.) Now we have reached the point where the federal government is telling us we must engage in commerce.

30
posted on 01/11/2014 11:52:36 AM PST
by OneWingedShark
(Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.